[SMTP:paolo...@tin.it]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:08 AM
To: Lothar Schmidt
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Good point Lothar,
it was about time that the original technical grounds and limitations of
CE
method were brought up.
Just one additional point
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paolo...@tin.it]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 3:08 AM
To: Lothar Schmidt
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Good point Lothar,
it was about time that the original technical grounds and limitations of CE
method were
6299
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:45 AM
To: Ralph Cameron; chris maxwell; dan kwok
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
I am getting the distinct (but uncomfortable) feeling that was is being
; chris maxwell; dan kwok
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
I am getting the distinct (but uncomfortable) feeling that was is being
discussed by a lot of people on this thread is that cable cm CE need to be
controlled to prevent either crosstalk to another bundle, or to prevent
...@igs.net
To: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com, Ken Javor
ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dan kwok dk...@intetron.com
Cc: EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 9:01 AM
What it boils down to Chris is the lack of immunity
In a message dated 1/16/01 7:09:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, ral...@igs.net
writes:
What it boils down to Chris is the lack of immunity of the consumer
equipment contributes to degradation of the intended function.
Ralph,
I've made this point to Art Wall of the FCC many times, he does not
(E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:38 AM
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Seems like this thread has gotten into how to correlate common mode cable
currents with their expected radiated emissions.
For those interested, Fischer Custom Communications makes
[SMTP:ral...@igs.net]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:57 PM
To: Ken Javor; dan kwok
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
No, your message is clear, what I am saying is that the emissions below
30Mhz cause the majority of the interference problems to consumer
...@igs.net; dan kwok dk...@intetron.com
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
I must have been unclear in my previous message. The purpose of
controlling
cable cm CE is to control the resultant cable-induced RE, which
--
From: Ralph Cameron ral...@igs.net
To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, Dan Kwok dk...@intetron.com
Cc: EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Date: Mon, Jan 15, 2001, 8:51 PM
Perhaps what you state is correct Ken but there has been a supposition
...@intetron.com; Ralph Cameron ral...@igs.net
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Mr. Kwok's theories are logical and no doubt bear on the subject, but
there
is a historical angle that bears inspection. About the time FCC
30 MHz sufficed
to control RE from the power cable to levels sufficient to protect against
cable radiation-induced rfi.
--
From: Dan Kwok dk...@intetron.com
To: Ralph Cameron ral...@igs.net
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Date: Mon, Jan 15
way.
- Original Message -
From: Dan Kwok dk...@intetron.com
To: Ralph Cameron ral...@igs.net
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Hello Ralph:
That's a good question. At one time, I pondered the same
Hello Ralph:
That's a good question. At one time, I pondered the same question
myself. There are obviously plenty of communication systems operating
under 30 MHz. I suppose there are reasons why CISPR or CISPR 22 does not
specify radiated emissions below 30 MHz. I can suggest one possibility.
: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... cet...@cetest.nl
To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, Cortland Richmond
72146@compuserve.com, ieee pstc list emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Date: Sun, Jan 14, 2001, 1:10 PM
Hi Ken,
Again you should definitely study
/-/
===
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Ken Javor
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 12:45 AM
To: Cortland Richmond; ieee pstc list
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
I think you misunderstood a couple
supply switching-speed related.
Ken Javor
--
--
From: Ralph Cameron ral...@igs.net
To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, David Heald
dhe...@curtis-straus.com, Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com
Cc: EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Date
would be guaranteed EUT enclosure-related.
Polite responses only, please!!!
Ken Javor
--
From: David Heald dhe...@curtis-straus.com
To: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001, 9:36
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 5:34 PM
Ken,
When you ask how members feel, you open a Pandora's box!
We must still meet some kind of installed bottom line; our equipment must
not generate fields above some limit. (We can argue what that should
)
== Original Message Follows
Date: 13-Jan-01 00:50:16 MsgID: 1077-20414 ToID: 72146,373
From: Ken Javor INTERNET:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Subj: Re: Site Correlation
Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 1
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Sat
-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 12:42 PM
Hello Ken,
BTW did you read CISPR16 ? It describes this method in detail
including calibration and construction details of what is commercially
available
called Luthi Clamp, after the inventor
Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 6:01 PM
To: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...; david heald;
tudor, allen
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
I have to admit that I used an absorbing clamp as a current
...@emccompliance.com, David Heald
dhe...@curtis-straus.com, Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com
Cc: EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 9:08 AM
You analysis of the situation is correct but for one thing:
In real life you cannot measure
/-/
===
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Ken Javor
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:44 AM
To: David Heald; Tudor, Allen
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
I must say
enclosure-related.
Polite responses only, please!!!
Ken Javor
--
From: David Heald dhe...@curtis-straus.com
To: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001, 9:36 AM
Greetings again.
I
Interesting... we are gojng to set-up a pre-compliance semi-anechoic
chamber for 3 m measurements (mainly radiated emissions) on telecom
products and we'll need to correlate it with a 10m full-compliant chamber.
Our DUT's are typically sub-rack or 2m+ high telecom racks. Your idea of
Greetings again.
I received some questions about this off list and there has been more
discussion in this direction, so I thought I would throw my other two
cents in.
For small fully anechoic chambers with little room for antenna height
adjustment, you should be able to have uncertainty
Joe,
If the transmitting antenna (your product) and the receiving antenna were in
free space, you pretty much could assume that the radiation falls off at 1/r^2,
and thus use a 10.5dB correction factor between 10m and 3m measurements. (You
might have to worry about near-field effects and antenna
I'd say either a comb generator, or a sweep generator but use them to
excite a test object of the same general size as the equipment you wish to
test. The smaller your chamber, the more it will be affected by the size of
an EUT sitting in it. If you can be pretty sure what you will test, add its
Pischl npis...@cisco.com
Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org
To: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com, EMC-PCST (E-mail)
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Allen,
the main problem you will have is not whether to use signal generator or a
comb generator
.
--
From: Brent Pahl bre...@dynarc.com
To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, Tudor, Allen
allen_tu...@adc.com, EMC-PCST \(E-mail\) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 1:31 PM
Hi Ken,
Very true. I was simply looking at the question of which
]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:02 AM
To: Brent Pahl; Tudor, Allen; EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Have to take strong exception. If EUT is much larger than comb generator, a
correlation between sites using the comb generator will not work for the
larger EUT. Measurement
.
--
From: Brent Pahl bre...@dynarc.com
To: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com, EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 11:31 AM
Allen,
We just did this in our 3-meter lab using a comb generator. After
interviewing several test
Allen,
We just did this in our 3-meter lab using a comb generator. After
interviewing several test labs, I found out that they use comb generator's
occasionally to see if they are still properly calibrated. Evidently, a
good comb generator will give a consistent output, give or take 0.5dB,
I would assume that the 10m semi-anechoic chamber complies with ANSI C63.4
volumetric NSA. I would also assume that the 3m chamber noes not comply.
The major correlation issues would relate to:
1) 3m versus 10m (regardless of the sites)
2) non-compliant room (with peaks and nulls) versus
If you don't use a source of similar size to the EUT you won't get the right
answer.
--
From: Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@adc.com
To: EMC-PCST (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Site Correlation
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 7:58 AM
Greetings:
What's the best way to correlate a
Allen,
the main problem you will have is not whether to use signal generator or a
comb generator, but the difference in the radiation characteristic of your
source for correlation and the DUTs that you will later put in the chamber.
You will measure a lots of near-field in you 3m or smaller
Hello all
There are a few variables that need to be addressed to answer this question.
The first is the nature of the chamber. My reply will assume that this is
a fully anechoic chamber (walls, floor, and ceiling all lined
with absorber material). Otherwise, all bets are off due to the
38 matches
Mail list logo
